Wind Turbine Payback in Pike County, MO
Wind turbine payback in Pike County
No. The turbine wears out before it pays for itself.
At 30 m, the height a home turbine tower usually reaches, the wind in Pike County, MO averages 5.62 m/s (12.6 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,907 kWh a year, worth $2,414 at MO's 14.28¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 41 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Pike County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Pike County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.62 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,215 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,691, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 30¢/kWh, 2.1 times what MO pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.62. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MO
Pike County is the 1,155th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MO is Atchison County at 6.17 m/s, payback 33 years.
Month by month in Pike County
April is the strongest month here, at 6.49 m/s and about 1,918 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.29 m/s and 688 kWh, so the best month makes 2.8 times the worst. November to March brings in 52% of the year's output in Pike County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.25 m/s | 1,833 kWh | $262 |
| February | 6.20 m/s | 1,625 kWh | $232 |
| March | 6.36 m/s | 1,899 kWh | $271 |
| April | 6.49 m/s | 1,918 kWh | $274 |
| May | 5.56 m/s | 1,402 kWh | $200 |
| June | 4.95 m/s | 1,001 kWh | $143 |
| July | 4.32 m/s | 705 kWh | $101 |
| August | 4.29 m/s | 688 kWh | $98 |
| September | 4.87 m/s | 958 kWh | $137 |
| October | 5.83 m/s | 1,566 kWh | $224 |
| November | 6.20 m/s | 1,741 kWh | $249 |
| December | 6.09 m/s | 1,727 kWh | $247 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Pike County averages 4.29 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.37 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.246, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 13,109 to 22,447 kWh a year, 71% more, before counting the extra cost of the taller tower. Why tower height decides it explains the shear behind these numbers.
| Hub height | Average wind | Output | Payback |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 m | 5.08 m/s | 13,109 kWh | 53 years |
| 30 m | 5.62 m/s | 16,891 kWh | 42 years |
| 40 m | 6.03 m/s | 19,925 kWh | 35 years |
| 50 m | 6.37 m/s | 22,447 kWh | 31 years |
Counties around Pike County
1 of the 6 closest counties is windier at turbine height; the windiest, Pike County, averages 5.67 m/s.
- Lincoln County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (22 mi)
- Ralls County, MO: 5.62 m/s, 16,907 kWh, payback 41 years (24 mi)
- Pike County, IL: 5.67 m/s, 17,272 kWh, payback 30 years (25 mi)
- Calhoun County, IL: 5.06 m/s, 12,941 kWh, payback 40 years (30 mi)
- Montgomery County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (32 mi)
- Audrain County, MO: 4.55 m/s, 9,641 kWh, payback 73 years (37 mi)
Sun versus wind in Pike County
Pike County gets 4.16 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,215 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,691. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.4 times. Panel output assumes an 80% system performance ratio. Wind or solar runs the same comparison for every county.
How this is worked out
Wind is NASA's Power climate record, the 2001-2025 average at 10 m and 50 m for the county's centre, carried to 30 m with this county's own measured wind shear and spread into hours with a Rayleigh distribution. The turbine is a generic 10 kW, 7 m rotor machine with 10% losses. Cost is $10,000 per kW installed with no tax credit, because the federal one ended in 2025. One county-centre number cannot see your hilltop or your tree line, so treat it as the starting point for a site survey, not a substitute. The full method and its weak spots are in how the numbers are made.